IRRUBRIEFING 1
Number 13 Spring 2006
IRRUBRIEFING
number 13 spring 2006
Examining the Business
Case for the Employment
of Disabled People
Ardha Danieli. The business case is widely seen
as holding considerable promise for achieving
equality for under-represented groups in
employment. For disabled people, however,
official statistics demonstrate that employees with
disabilities remain far from achieving equality at
work with non-disabled staff.
A team of researchers, led by Ardha
Danieli, have conducted a two year
research project, funded by the
European Social Fund, to examine
in-depth in two large organisations
what the barriers to implementing the
business case for the employment of
disabled people are in practice.
The two organisations participating in
the research were a leading UK-based
private sector company and an English
local authority. Both organisations
were given assurances of anonymity
in subsequent reports of the research
findings, and have been labelled PSO
and ELA respectively.
The research had two main strands.
First, an analysis of demographic data
of each organisation’s workforce,
supplied by their respective HR
functions (see box on page 3 for key
findings). Second, a programme of
260 personal interviews across the
two organisations with disabled and
non-disabled senior managers, line
Also in this issue
Survey Highlights
Active Employer
Responses to
New Employee
Consultation Law
Research commissioned from
IRRU by the West Midlands
Employment Relations Forum
shows that almost two-thirds of
member companies surveyed
are actively responding to the
introduction of legislation on
employee information and
consultation in April 2005.
managers, non-managerial employees,
and also trade union officials. Focus
group interviews with disabled
employee representative groups were
also undertaken in both organisations.
>> See page 5
Operation of the business case in PSO
PSO had a clear corporate commitment to the business case for the
employment of disabled people, and
equality and diversity policies based
on best practice advice. Yet in practice
respondents found it difficult to make
a business case in relation to disabled
employees, since this was often
interpreted as requiring an economic
justification.
Four decades ago, workplace
relations were regulated
principally through voluntary
agreements between employers
and representative trade unions
Prominent employment lawyers
were able to observe that, ‘most
workers want nothing more of
the law than it should leave them
alone’. Collective bargaining
has receded significantly since
then and the law has come to
play a much expanded role,
establishing a broad range of
statutory individual rights
enforceable through the
employment tribunal system.
Disabled people did not view the
organisation’s culture as disability
friendly. Indeed many described it as
one of fear, and cases of bullying and
harassment were reported.
Respondents said that there was a
stigma attached to disability,
>> continued on page 3
Exploring ‘Legal
Mobilisation’
>> See page 8
IRRU embraces the research activities of the industrial relations community in Warwick
University’s Business School (WBS). Visit us at http://users.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/group/IRRU.
2 IRRUBRIEFING
In this Issue
W
elcome to this redesigned issue of
IRRU Briefing, which carries features
from three current research projects and
an update on our research activities.
The business case for promoting equal
opportunities at work for disadvantaged
groups within the workforce has been
forcefully advocated by governments,
public institutions and influential
practitioners in the UK. Yet research
on womens’ position in the labour
market and within organisations,
including studies undertaken by IRRU
researchers, has pointed to the limits of
the business case in promoting gender
equality. In recent years awareness
of the disadvantages in employment
encountered by workers with disabilities
has increased. This is reflected in the
strengthening in 2004 of the UK’s
Disability Discrimination Act, which
provides disabled people with legal
entitlement to equal treatment at work.
The first feature, which reports key
findings from a project funded by the
European Social Fund, focuses on policy
and practice towards the employment
of workers with disabilities in two large
organisations. It demonstrates that for
disabled employees too the business case
has evident limits in advancing equal
treatment. In considering the differences
between the two organisations, the
research points to the importance of an
IRRU Briefing is published periodically
by the Industrial Relations Research
Unit. It contains summaries of key
findings from recent and current
research projects, information on new
projects and publications and analysis
of significant industrial relations
developments. The reports aim to
inform and contribute to the thinking of
practitioners in industrial relations and
human resource management. IRRU’s
research ranges much wider than the
topics covered in this Briefing. Many of
our recent papers can be found on IRRU’s
additional rationale of social justice
mobilised in one of them.
The development of legally-based
rights to employee information and
consultation in the UK has been a focus
of IRRU research in recent years. The
second feature reports findings from a
small-scale survey looking at whether,
and how, employers are responding
to the requirements of the UK’s new
Information and Consultation of
Employees Regulations. It is based on
returns from member organisations
of the West Midlands Employment
Relations Forum, which IRRU jointly
organises with Midlands Acas, together
with the Midlands TUC, West Midlands
CBI and West Midlands EEF.
The third feature analyses the ways in
which trade unions are responding
to the rise of statutorily enforceable
individual employment rights. It draws
on in-depth studies of two trade unions.
The issue also includes an IRRU
research update, covering new research
projects, selected new publications
and forthcoming events. We hope you
enjoy IRRU Briefing and would welcome
any feedback on our new design and
content.
Paul Marginson, IRRU Director
web site. Please go to http://users.wbs.
warwick.ac.uk/group/IRRU.
For further information on our work,
please contact the IRRU Research
Coordinator at the address on the final
page of this issue.
IRRUBRIEFING 3
Number 13 Spring 2006
Examining the Business Case
for the Employment of Disabled People
• A divisionalised business structure
which militates against the
redeployment of disabled people across
the organisation
<< continued from page 1
and to declare oneself as disabled
amounted to “career death”. The
contradiction experienced between
corporate policy of valuing diversity and
actual organisational practice led to a
significant degree of cynicism towards
the organisation on the part of disabled
employees. A variety of structural and
procedural dimensions were highlighted
as contributing to this.
The constant drive to improve
productivity with ever decreasing
resources, together with the divisionalised
structure of the business, outsourcing of
HR administration and decentralisation
of people management and budgets to
line management, were seen to create an
inconsistent approach to the employment
of disabled people in PSO. Whilst this
was often explained in terms of ‘good’
or ‘bad’ line managers, respondents also
pointed to a number of structural factors
which constrained the behaviour of line
managers. These included:
• An appraisal system which values the
achievement of performance targets
over people management skills
• A performance management system
which links productivity targets and
sickness/absence statistics to bonus
payments for managers
• The charging of occupational health
and safety (OHS) referrals and, in
some divisions, the costs of reasonable
adjustments to line managers’ budgets
• High levels of turnover amongst line
managers which made for inconsistency
and created time delays in making
reasonable adjustments
• A lack of understanding of disability
amongst line managers due to
inadequate training
• A sickness/absence system which made
no distinction between impairment
related absence and general sickness
absence
Profile of Disabled
Employees in the Two
Organisations
Proportion of the workforce declaring
themselves as disabled
ELA:
PSO:
2.1%
7.4%
Gender
ELA: disabled people more likely to
be female than male
PSO: no difference
Hours of work
ELA: no difference
PSO: disabled people more likely to
work full time than non-disabled
Salary
ELA: no difference
PSO: disabled people less likely to be
on higher salary points than nondisabled
Promotion
ELA: disabled people more likely to
be promoted than non-disabled
PSO: no difference
In combination, these cultural
and structural features resulted in
poor implementation. A number of
procedural problems were also evident,
including inconsistency of treatment
of disabled people, which emanated
from the conflicting pressures on line
managers and the lack of training;
appraisal systems which did not take
into account the impact of individuals’
impairment(s); and failure to implement
OHS recommendations for reasonable
adjustments. Informal practices, which
undermined formal policies, included
a tendency for disabled staff to be less
likely to be offered prestigious work which
might subsequently enable them to apply
for promotion; denial of opportunities
to work flexibly and/or from home; and
pressure to return from sick leave before
they were fit and/or to take annual
leave instead of time off sick, in order
that sickness statistics did not reduce
managers’ bonus payments. And whilst
the existence of the Two Ticks policy
ensured that disabled redeployees who
met the job criteria generally achieved an
interview, line managers reported that
they were unlikely to appoint from this
group.
Operation of the business case in ELA
The employment of disabled people
in ELA presented different problems
than in PSO. Respondents at ELA were
aware that the organisation had a
corporate commitment to supporting
the employment of disabled people,
and some felt that the business case was
being emphasised more at corporate level
than in the past. Yet many felt that the
business case was overridden by moral
and social justice considerations. Line
managers and disabled employees were
generally unsympathetic to the business
case as a rationale, arguing that the
language and the economic rationale
underpinning it did not sit well with the
ethos of public service.
Disabled employees reported that a
sense of corporate social responsibility
was embedded within the culture of the
4 IRRUBRIEFING
“
The findings
suggest that ELA is
making more progress
towards removing
differences between
disabled and nondisabled employees than
PSO. The implication is
that the business case
alone is unlikely to lead
to an improvement in the
employment of disabled
people
”
organisation, creating a disability friendly
culture which valued diversity. There was
little perceived contradiction between
corporate policy and organisational
practice. Disabled people were generally
not reluctant to declare a disability in ELA
because they did not believe that it would
have negative consequences.
Some of the structural factors which
inhibited the employment of disabled
people in PSO were not evident in ELA.
Employees were subject to performance
development reviews which were used
primarily to consider training and
development needs for their current job
and did not play a role in promotion or
redeployment decisions. Quantifiable
performance targets were set at
departmental level, but not for individual
managers or employees. Neither the
performance management system nor
the sickness/absence statistics were
linked to managers’ financial rewards.
The departmental structure did not
inhibit the redeployment of individuals
between departments. Nevertheless,
other structural factors were highlighted
as problematic.
• Physical access to buildings and within
buildings was cited most often as
inhibiting the employment of people
with mobility problems. This was
primarily a result of the age of buildings
and the cost of adaptations.
• Finite budgets for adaptations which
once spent, resulted in an inability to
fund further adaptations until the next
financial year
• A lack of understanding, due to
insufficient training, amongst line
managers of disability related issues
• A lack of promotional opportunities
• A sickness/absence system which made
no distinction between impairment
related absence and general sickness
absence
Most of the procedural factors which
inhibited the implementation of the
business case in PSO were not evident in
ELA. Aspects identified as problematic
included: insufficient information to line
managers on central funding available for
reasonable adjustments; long time delays
in securing reasonable adjustments; and
implementation of redeployment leading
to inappropriate alternative employment
being offered, with the result that
disabled employees leave. The scale of
informal practice mitigating against
policy objectives was also noticeably
smaller than at PSO, but included a
feeling by disabled employees that they
have to “make a nuisance of themselves”
in order to have their needs recognised
Conclusion
The findings suggest that ELA is making
more progress towards removing
differences between disabled and nondisabled employees than PSO. The
implication is that the business case alone
is unlikely to lead to an improvement
in the employment of disabled people.
Organisations have also to create a
culture in which difference can be valued
in practice by those charged with its
implementation. This requires that HR
systems and procedures enable difference
to be accommodated rather than ignored.
In PSO the approach to disability can
be characterised primarily as one of
assimilation. Line managers believed
that once specialist equipment had been
provided for disabled employees they
should then be treated as though they
were no different to non-disabled people.
In contrast, driven by a social justice
rationale ELA appears to be generating a
more disability friendly culture. Whilst
there is still scope for improvement,
the over arching approach to managing
disabled employees in ELA is one based
on integration in which difference is
accommodated beyond the provision of
specialist equipment.
IRRUBRIEFING 5
Number 13 Spring 2006
Survey Highlights Active Employer
Responses to New Employee
Consultation Law
In September/October 2005 IRRU
carried out a small-scale survey for the
West Midlands Employment Relations
Forum (WMERF) to gauge what sort
of steps, if any, member organisations
have been taking in response to the
new Information and Consultation of
Employees (ICE) Regulations, which came
into effect in April 2005.
Under the Regulations, employees
have the statutory right to be informed
and consulted by their employer on a
range of key business, employment and
restructuring issues. A key question is
the extent to which the ICE Regulations
will result in ‘legislatively-prompted
voluntarism’, with the prospect of
recourse to statutory procedures driving
the voluntary introduction or reform of
organisation-specific information and
consultation arrangements.
The survey
A brief questionnaire designed to collect
basic data on employers’ arrangements
for informing and consulting their
employees and their responses to the
ICE Regulations was distributed to 50
WMERF member organisations. Twentyeight returns were received – a 56%
response rate which is good for this type
of exercise. In addition, the regional CBI
and EEF circulated the questionnaire
to member firms which generated a
further six responses from non-WMERF
companies, giving a total of 34 responses.
In terms of the number of workers
employed, the great majority of
respondents – 28 or 82% – fell into
the 150+ size bracket, i.e. they are
organisations which are already subject
to the Regulations. A further three (9%)
organisations have between 50 and 149
employees, so will be in the second or
Research commissioned from IRRU by the West Midlands
Employment Relations Forum shows that almost two-thirds
of member companies surveyed are actively responding
to the introduction of legislation on employee information
and consultation in April 2005. Companies recognising
trade unions are more likely to have responded to the new
legislative requirements than those which do not.
third wave of organisations covered by
the Regulations in 2007 or 2008. Three
(9%) have fewer than 50 employees and
therefore will not become subject to the
legislation.
Respondents were equally split between
manufacturing/production and services
with 15 (44%) in each case, with the
remaining four (12%) coming from the
public sector. Twenty-two organisations
(65%) recognised trade unions for at least
some of their employees. The remaining
12 (35%) did not.
Main findings
The survey asked what types of
information and consultation
arrangements existed within the
respondent organisations. Fourteen
organisations (41%) report they have an
information and consultation body or
employee forum. Seventeen (50%) inform
and consult via recognised trade unions,
but the most popular practice amongst
our respondents was information and
consultation directly with employees,
reported by 20 organisations (59%).
A majority (21) report using more than
one method, including five organisations
that use all three methods. Five
organisations (15%) said they have no
current arrangements.
Figure 1 below shows that information
and consultation via recognised unions
is the most widespread practice among
unionised organisations, reported by over
three-quarters of relevant respondents
(17 out of 22). Direct information and
Figure 1
Existing information and consultation arrangements
80
Key
60
Information and
consultation body
or bodies
40
Information/
consultation via
recognised trade unions
20
Information and
consultation directly
with employees
No current
arrangements
%
Mark Hall
Aristea Koukiadaki
Duncan Adam
Yes
No
Trade union recognition for any group of employees?
6 IRRUBRIEFING
Amongst the non-union organisations,
Figure 1 indicates that direct information
and consultation is the most popular
practice, reported by 6 out of 12
respondents (50%). Four out of 12 (33%)
have information and consultation
bodies. Thus, non-union organisations
in the survey are less likely than
unionised organisations to inform
and consult directly and less likely to
have information and consultation
bodies. They are also more likely to
have no information and consultation
arrangements at all (4 out of 12).
Given the importance attached by the
Regulations to agreed arrangements,
organisations were also asked about
the status of their information and
consultation practices. Of the 29
respondents who had information
and consultation arrangements,
14 respondents (48%) have written
agreements with trade union
representatives and six (21%) have
arrangements based on written
agreement with non-trade union
reps. In only two cases (7%) were
the arrangements reported to have
been approved by employees. In
ten organisations (35%) there were
formal arrangements introduced by
management.
Arguably the most interesting
findings concern the impact of the
ICE Regulations on organisations’
information and consultation
arrangements. Organisations were
asked which of a number of different
statements most accurately described
their response to the ICE Regulations.
Excluding three respondents who
are too small to be covered by the
Regulations, even when their coverage
is widened in 2007 or 2008, and one
which did not answer this question, 11
(37%) of organisations said they had
already modified their information and
consultation arrangements in response
to the Regulations. This is a higher figure
than might have been expected given
the widely held view that relatively
little seems to be happening on the
ground in relation to the Regulations. Six
organisations (20%) said they intended
to review their current arrangements
in the near future, and a further three
(7%) that they intended to introduce
new information and consultation
arrangements.
Eleven or 37% of the respondents said
they were not planning to take any action
in response to the Regulations, including
eight that already have one or more
types of information and consultation
arrangement but three which have
nothing.
As Figure 2 below shows, unionised
organisations are proportionately
more likely to have already modified
their information and consultation
arrangements in response to the
Regulations than non-union
organisations (38% compared to 33%),
and are more likely to intend to introduce
new arrangements (10% compared to
none). Non-union organisations are more
likely to say they are not planning any
action in response to the Regulations
(44% to 33%). Respondents without any
“
11 organisations
said they had already
modified their
information and
consultation
arrangements in
response to the
Regulations. Six
organisations said they
intended to review their
current arrangements
in the near future, and
a further three that they
intended to introduce
new information
and consultation
arrangements
”
Figure 2 Organisational responses to ICE Regulations
40
Trade union recognition for
any group of employees?
Yes
No
50
30
20
10
%
consultation takes place in 64% of
unionised organisations (14 of 22) and
46% have information and consultation
bodies (10 of 22). Only one unionised
organisation said they had no current
arrangements.
Already modified
Intend to
arrangements
review current
arrangements
Intend to
introduce new
arrangements
Not planning
any action
IRRUBRIEFING 7
Number 13 Spring 2006
current information and consultation
arrangements but who are not planning
to take any action in response to the
Regulations, although a small group,
are more likely to be non-union
organisations.
Overall, therefore, these figures suggest an
association between union recognition
and active compliance strategies on the
part of employers.
One final and very striking statistic is that
no fewer than 33 of our 34 respondents
said that they do not expect their
employees to request negotiations under
the Regulations on the establishment
of new information and consultation
arrangements. (The one company that
did expect a request already has an
information and consultation body
in place, but this was introduced by
management and has not been agreed
with the union(s) it recognises or with
employees.) This finding suggests another
reason why 37% of the respondents
who are covered by the Regulations
feel able to say they are not planning to
take any action in response to the new
legislation. This is that, particularly in
undertakings with no union presence,
“
the 10% threshold of active employee
support required by the Regulations to
trigger negotiations over new information
and consultation arrangements looks
like being a high hurdle (except perhaps
where significant in-company events,
such as redundancies, provide the
catalyst). The pressure on employers
to respond to the Regulations may not
necessarily be very strong in practice.
Conclusion
The respondents in the survey were not
representative of the economy or the
region in general. Also, the low numbers
in some of the categories used mean
that the results should be treated with
some caution. However, the survey does
provide a snapshot of what information
and consultation practices employers
belonging to WMERF are using and how
they have been responding to the ICE
Regulations. Most notably, it suggests
that the new legislation is far from being
the damp squib that some commentators
have predicted, with almost two-thirds
of respondents indicating that they are
actively responding to the Regulations by
modifying or reviewing their procedures
or putting new arrangements in place.
Most notably, it suggests that the new
legislation is far from being the damp squib that
some commentators have predicted, with almost
two-thirds of respondents indicating that they are
actively responding to the Regulations by modifying
or reviewing their procedures or putting new
arrangements in place
”
8 IRRUBRIEFING
Exploring ‘Legal Mobilisation’:
Trade Union Action to Enforce Statutory
Individual Employment Rights
Trevor Colling
On the face of it, representation through
trade unions and the increased reliance
on the law seem mutually exclusive
processes. Overall, workers in unionised
workplaces contribute relatively little to
the workload of employment tribunals.
In part this is because statutory rights are
more developed. New legal standards,
such as paternity leave, are adopted and
improved upon through negotiation and
unions tend to lift minimum statutory
entitlements to sick pay, pensions,
and holidays. The availability of
representation also ensures that disputes
are generally resolved more effectively
within the workplace. Employment
security is highest where unions are
present: formal disciplinary sanctions
are less likely in these workplaces and
dismissals much less so.
Employment tribunal applications
come disproportionately from the
growing number of small non-union
organisations. Workplaces with fewer
than fifty employees, where only
one in five employees is covered by
collective bargaining, contribute nearly
Four decades ago, workplace relations were regulated
principally through voluntary agreements between
employers and representative trade unions. Prominent
employment lawyers were able to observe that, ‘most
workers want nothing more of the law than it should
leave them alone’. Collective bargaining has receded
significantly since then and the law has come to play
a much expanded role, establishing a broad range of
statutory individual rights enforceable through the
employment tribunal system. This shift is reflected in the
incidence of employment disputes: whilst organised strike
activity fell throughout the 1990s, claims to tribunals
trebled. Some employers now express concern about a
‘compensation culture’. Whether or not this is justified, it
is clear that workers are now much more reliant on the law
than they once were. What role remains for unions in these
processes? Is the extension of legal regulation another
manifestation of their decline? Or have unions adapted to
an increasingly legalistic environment?
two-thirds of tribunal cases. Claims
concerning redundancy payments and
unlawful deductions from wages come
overwhelmingly from employees in
such workplaces. Explanations lie in
the generally lower awareness amongst
employers of their legal obligations.
Formal policies and procedures are
less prominent, which tends to push
employees to seek redress in external
hearings.
On closer examination, however, legal
pressures and voluntary initiatives
through unions are bound to interact.
Unions increasingly use the law as a
floor to collective bargaining activity,
as suggested above. Unions have
also become involved in the formal
enforcement of individual rights
through the tribunal and senior court
system. This is not entirely novel: unions
have always offered advocacy and
legal services to individual members,
particularly in relation to personal
injury claims. For some time, though,
there has been suggestive evidence of
a more sophisticated approach to the
law in which individual claims are used
to build support for collective interests.
Cases taken under the discrimination
jurisdictions have been used to
demonstrate union capacity to represent
the interests of marginalised groups. For
example, the GMB was the first union
to take an equal value case through the
British courts and on to the European
Court of Justice, and the positive outcome
was used in recruitment literature for
some time afterwards. The law might also
be used as an additional lever to pressure
employers during collective bargaining.
Discrimination legislation was used by
unions to challenge pay arrangements in
the National Health Service and similar
tactics were used in the retail sector,
in the utility industries and in local
government. These kinds of approaches
might be termed ‘legal mobilisation’,
since the formal enforcement of
individual legal rights is used by unions as
part of a strategy to attract new members,
to mobilise existing ones around
particular issues, or to bring employers to
the bargaining table.
IRRUBRIEFING 9
Number 13 Spring 2006
Data from the Survey of Employment
Tribunal Applications offer some
indication of union involvement in the
tribunal system. In the 2003 survey, 26
per cent of applicants reported union
involvement in their case. This figure is
roughly proportionate to trade union
membership but it may understate the
scale of legal activity within unions and
its impact in particular areas of the law.
In complex areas, such as transfer of
undertakings, significant case authority
stems usually from union backed cases.
Discrimination claims, broadly defined,
are brought disproportionately against
large employers and those in the public
sector where union involvement in the
origination and resolution of such cases
is likely.
Case study research confirms broad
features of this picture. Interviews
were conducted in two mediumsized professional unions, Prospect
and NATFHE, operating in the public
sector and the quasi-public sector (e.g.,
universities, former public enterprises,
and civil service agencies). Both unions
might be considered ‘legal activists’. Each
had sophisticated legal functions that
played important roles in facilitating
high-level strategic challenges to
employers, securing important case
authority in the senior courts, in
relation to transfer or undertakings and
discrimination legislation.
Yet scant evidence of ‘legal mobilisation’
in the terms indicated above emerged
from these cases. Indeed, they revealed
deep scepticism within unions about
the value of legal tactics overall; a
strongly selective approach to their use;
and the possibility that they are likely
to vary between unions of different
types. Increased legalism within
tribunals, where employers usually
retain qualified legal representation, had
raised the risks and the costs associated
with litigation. There was increasing
pressure for specialist legal officers
to co-ordinate tribunal activity or to
appoint barristers where in the past
officials had represented members. One
consequence was to reduce significantly
opportunities to shift from the legal to
the negotiating arena; a pre-requisite of
successful ‘legal mobilisation’. This was
“
Use of the law has become a familiar tactic for
trade unions but their methods and objectives are
likely to vary significantly according to their particular
membership constituencies and the organising
challenges that they face
”
because the responsibility for resolving
the case was transferred from industrial
relations specialists (union officials and
personnel/human resources managers)
to legal counsel, a process associated
with a distinct hardening of positions.
The ‘win or lose’ nature of subsequent
legal judgments was contrasted with the
more nuanced outcomes delivered by
negotiation and the greater possibilities
of diffusion beyond the immediate
individual case that these offered.
As a consequence, both unions had
sought to restrict their resort to tribunals.
Legal support was focused on cases
with significant legal merits, or those
which involved issues of principle for
the union. Otherwise demand from
members for legal representation
tended to be deflected, so that cases
were resolved within workplaces by lay
representatives wherever possible. This
kind of approach was made possible
by the specific organising contexts in
which these unions operated. Employers
were relatively sophisticated, bargaining
relationships were mature, and whilst
considerable effort was being expended
on strengthening lay representation, it
existed in skeleton form at least in most
workplaces. Conversely, it was suggested,
unions needing to recruit in smaller
workplaces and greenfield sites were likely
to use the law more extensively to gain
access and influence over employers. Use
of the law has become a familiar tactic
for trade unions but their methods and
objectives are likely to vary significantly
according to their particular membership
constituencies and the organising
challenges that they face.
These issues are explored in more detail
in: Colling, T. (2006, forthcoming) “What
space for unions on the floor of rights?
Trade unions and the enforcement of
statutory individual employment rights.”
Industrial Law Journal.
10 IRRUBRIEFING
Research Update
New research projects
Information and consultation of employees
– longitudinal employer case studies: this
major study of up to four years’ duration
will investigate how employers are
responding to the UK’s Information
and Consultation of Employees (ICE)
Regulations which came into force in
April 2005. Based on case studies of 24
companies in the private sector, the
research will gauge the diversity of
arrangements being adopted and evaluate
the quality and impact of the consultative
relationships that ensue. The perspectives
of management, trade unions (where
these are recognised) and employee
representatives will be addressed
through in-depth interviews, and those
of employees through attitude surveys
conducted amongst a representative
sample of the workforce in participating
companies.
of Bath. Jane Parker will be employed as a
research fellow.
The field research will be undertaken
in successive waves, commencing with
the larger undertakings employing 150
or more already covered by the ICE
Regulations and moving on to smaller
undertakings which will become covered
from either 2007 or 2008 (depending on
their size). A key feature of the research is
its longitudinal dimension, under which
developments in participating companies
will be tracked over a 2-3 year period.
This will facilitate understanding of the
dynamics involved in the establishment
of new, and the modification of existing,
arrangements and in the evolving impact
of information and consultation practice.
The work for the European Working
Conditions Observatory complements
IRRU’s long-established role as national
centre of the European Foundation’s
European Industrial Relations
Observatory.
http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int
The research, which started in early 2006,
is funded by the Department of Trade
and Industry and involves collaboration
between Mark Hall and Michael Terry at
IRRU and John Purcell at the University
European Working Conditions Observatory:
as a result of a successful tender, IRRU
became the first UK centre for the
European Foundation’s developing
European Working Conditions
Observatory (http://www.eurofound.
eu.int/ewco) as from April 2005.
Currently covering sixteen European
countries , the Observatory monitors
developments in and research findings on
forms and security of employment; work
organisation and work practices; workers’
health and well-being; skills and training;
and work-life balance. Coordinated by
Jane Parker and Paul Marginson, IRRU
contributes reports and secondary
analysis on subjects under these four
main themes.
Publications
IRRU staff generate a considerable volume
of reports, articles, chapters for edited
books and papers. Here we highlight two
key publications which appeared during
the second half of 2005:
• The Politics of Working Life by Paul
Edwards (IRRU) and Judy Wajcman
(Australian National University and
IRRU Associate Fellow). The book is
about the realities of working in
organizations. Aimed at the interested
reader, it makes no assumptions about
previous knowledge and is written in
a lively and accessible style. It takes
the reader into key and complex
issues about how organizations work,
such as what is happening to careers,
the nature of power, and the impact
of globalisation. It rests on a strong
analytical approach that provides a
consistent perspective on these issues.
Published by Oxford University Press
(2005): ISBN 0-19-927190-0 (hardback)
0-19-927191-7 (paperback).
• Review of Research into the Impact of
Employment Relations Legislation by
Linda Dickens and Mark Hall. Since
1997 there has been a significant
extension in the legal regulation of
the employment relationship. The
report reviews research that has been
undertaken into the impact of this
legislation. As well as highlighting
key findings, it identifies the factors
affecting impact / compliance, and
suggests reasons for the relatively
limited amount of primary research in
this area. Published as part of the DTI’s
Employment Relations Research Series
No. 45 (October 2005). ISBN 0-85605375-9. Available online at: www.dti.gov.
uk/er/inform.htm
IRRUBRIEFING 11
Number 13 Spring 2006
IRRU Staff
Forthcoming events
2006 Warwick-Acas Lowry lecture: Tuesday
March 21st 2006. The Rt Hon Alan
Johnson MP, Secretary of State for Trade
and Industry, will be give the fifth lecture
in the series at Warwick Business School,
University of Warwick. His theme will be
‘the world of work’.
Further information and an invitation
can be obtained from IRRU’s research
coordinator, whose contact details are
given on the back page.
West Midlands Employment Relations Forum
2006. Launched in 2004, the Forum is
organised by Acas Midlands region and
IRRU together with the West Midlands
CBI, the West Midlands EEF and the
Midlands TUC. It aims to help foster
good employment practice across the
West Midlands and to raise the profile of
employment relations within the region.
The Forum held three successful half-day
events during 2005. These focused on
training and skills at work; tackling stress
at work; and responding to the UK’s new
employee information and consultation
legislation.
In 2006, three further events on topical
employment issues are being planned
the first of which will address flexible
working arrangements. Membership of
the Forum is open to companies, public
service organisations, trade unions and
employment relations professionals
within the West Midlands.
Further information on Forum activities,
and on membership, is available from
Georgina Sutton, Acas Midlands,
Warwick House, 6 Highfield Road,
Birmingham, B15 3ED (Tel 0121 452 7925)
or from IRRU’s Research Coordinator.
During 2005 IRRU welcomed Trevor Colling and Melanie
Simms, appointed to a senior lectureship and lectureship
in industrial relations in Warwick Business School,
respectively. Duncan Adam was appointed as survey
research assistant. Shafaq Afraz and Sam Bairstow left
at the end of their project-based contracts and Valeria
Pulignano moved first to the European Trade Union and
Institute and then to the Catholic University of Leuven
after leaving her lectureship at Warwick.
Academic and
Research Staff
Jim Arrowsmith
Trevor Colling
Ardha Danieli
Deborah Dean
Linda Dickens
Paul Edwards
Molly Gray
Anne-Marie Greene
Sukanya Sen Gupta
Mark Hall
Sonia Liff
Paul Marginson
Guglielmo Meardi
Jane Parker
Sylvia Rohlfer
Melanie Simms
Keith Sisson*
Mike Terry
Chin-Ju Tsai
Martyn Wright
* Emeritus Professor
SKOPE Staff who are also
members of IRRU
Ewart Keep
Caroline Lloyd
Clerical and Support Staff
Duncan Adam
Val Jephcott
IRRU Doctoral
Students
Domenico Bevilacqua
Heather Connolly
Chris Edger
Godwin Erapi
Sophie Gamwell
Enda Hannon
Annette Hayden
Aristea Koukiadaki
Thomas Prosser
Sylvia Rohlfer
IRRU Associate Fellows
Jacques Bélanger
(Université Laval, Quebec)
Mark Carley
Tony Edwards
(King’s College, London)
Anthony Ferner
(De Montfort University)
Mark Gilman
(University of Kent)
Richard Hyman
(LSE)
Valeria Pulignano
(Catholic University, Leuven)
Helen Rainbird
(University of Birmingham)
Monder Ram (De Montfort University)
Judy Wajcman
(Australian National University)
David Winchester
12 IRRUBRIEFING
ABOUT IRRU
IRRU embraces the research activities
of the industrial relations community
in Warwick University’s Business
School (WBS). There are currently 20
academic staff. Our work combines
long-term fundamental research and
short-term commissioned projects.
In both instances, we maintain the
independence and integrity of the work,
which have been the hallmark of IRRU
since its establishment in 1970. We
aim thereby to improve the quality of
data and analysis available to industrial
relations policy-making by government,
employers and trade unions. Current
funded research projects include:
employment practice in multinational
companies in organisational context;
the impact of inward investment on
employment practice in central eastern
Europe; stake holder involvement in
managing diversity; evolving practice
in the employment of disabled people;
womens’ organisation in trade unions;
employee information and consultation
practice in the UK; variable payments
systems and collective bargaining; and
the organisational roots of productivity in
medium-sized enterprises.
IRRU publishes textbooks on industrial
relations and human resource
management. The most recent are Gill
Kirton and Anne-Marie Greene, eds.
The Dynamics of Managing Diversity:
a Critical Approach 2nd Edn (London,
Butterworth Heinemann), published in
2004, and Paul Edwards, ed., Industrial
Relations: Theory and Practice 2nd
Edn (Oxford, Blackwell), published in
2003. Industrial Relations provides a
comprehensive treatment of the subject
which blends description and analysis.
IRRU is the UK National Centre for
the European Industrial Relations
Observatory (EIRO) and for the European
Working Conditions Observatory
(EWCO). EIRO collects, analyses and
disseminates high-quality and up-todate information on industrial relations
developments in Europe. IRRU provides a
range of inputs including regular features
which analyse current developments in
policy and practice, in briefs which report
key UK developments and contributions
to comparative studies which provide a
cross-country perspective of a particular
topic. EIRO’s database, including IRRU’s
input, is publicly accessible on-line
at: http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int.
EWCO’s activities are summarised under
the ‘Research Update’ in this issue. Its
database, including IRRU’s input, can
be accessed on-line at http://www.
eurofound.eu.int/ewco.
Further Information: Information on our current research programme and projects, and on recent papers and publications, is
available from IRRU’s website: http://users.wbs.warwick.ac.uk/group/IRRU
Alternatively, please contact Val Jephcott, IRRU Research Coordinator, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL; email irruvj@wbs.warwick.ac.uk; phone +44 (0)24 7652 4268
IRRUbriefing is designed by Morse-Brown Design www.morsebrowndesign.co.uk